Embracing Model Uncertainty: Strategies for Response Pooling and Model Averaging

Econometricians modeling Stated Preference (SP) data, and most other types of data, are confronted with the uncomfortable reality that our knowledge of the “true” model is limited, with only certain variables suggested by the application at hand and general classes of functional forms and error structures suggested by the literature. Accepting our limited knowledge, we pursue strategies for analyzing SP data that are more robust to uncertainties in our knowledge of the true model. These include non-parametric and parametric likelihood-based tests of pooling responses from different elicitation formats, and a frequentist-based model averaging approach for estimating willingness to pay functions. We argue that these strategies lead to increased econometric integrity and empower the ultimate users of models, such as policy decision-makers and even juries, to better assess the robustness of the results. We apply these approaches to an SP survey of saltwater angling in Alaska which utilized split-sample rankings and ratings elicitation methods. While an important goal of our paper is to develop practicable modeling strategies that will ultimately lead to more robust conclusions and more confidence by the users of SP results, an equally important goal is to engender a critical discussion of how we can make the analysis of SP data more robust.

[1]  Richard A. Levine,et al.  Bayesian Approaches to Modeling Stated Preference Data , 2005 .

[2]  K. Burnham,et al.  Model selection: An integral part of inference , 1997 .

[3]  Clifford M. Hurvich,et al.  Model selection for extended quasi-likelihood models in small samples. , 1995, Biometrics.

[4]  D. Dillman,et al.  Mail and telephone surveys , 1978 .

[5]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[6]  D. Layton,et al.  From Ratings to Rankings: The Econometric Analysis of Stated Preference Ratings Data , 2006 .

[7]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[8]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  Falmagne and the Rationalizability of Stochastic Choices in Terms of Random Orderings , 1986 .

[9]  D. Nychka,et al.  A nonparametric multiple choice method within the random utility framework , 2000 .

[10]  David F. Layton,et al.  Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys , 2000 .

[11]  John I. Yellott,et al.  GENERALIZED THURSTONE MODELS FOR RANKING - EQUIVALENCE AND REVERSIBILITY , 1980 .

[12]  D. Wise,et al.  A CONDITIONAL PROBIT MODEL FOR QUALITATIVE CHOICE: DISCRETE DECISIONS RECOGNIZING INTERDEPENDENCE AND HETEROGENEOUS PREFERENCES' , 1978 .

[13]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[14]  Michael R. Veall,et al.  Bootstrapping the Process of Model Selection: An Econometric Example , 1992 .

[15]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models , 1999, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[16]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[17]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats , 2001 .

[18]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2006 .

[19]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Assessing the potential demand for electric cars , 1981 .

[20]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[21]  Clifford M. Hurvich,et al.  Regression and time series model selection in small samples , 1989 .

[22]  David F. Layton,et al.  Alternative Approaches for Modeling Concave Willingness to Pay Functions in Conjoint Valuation , 2001 .

[23]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

[24]  W. Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Analysis with Discrete Choice Models , 1996 .

[25]  J. Cooper,et al.  A Joint Framework for Analysis of Agri‐Environmental Payment Programs , 2003 .

[26]  Richard A. Levine,et al.  How Much Does the Far Future Matter? A Hierarchical Bayesian Analysis of the Public's Willingness to Mitigate Ecological Impacts of Climate Change , 2003 .

[27]  Randall G. Chapaaan,et al.  Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic Utility Model , 1982 .

[28]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions , 1990 .

[29]  Eduardo Ley,et al.  Bayesian modelling of catch in a north‐west Atlantic fishery , 2002 .

[30]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[31]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation , 1996 .

[32]  D. McFadden The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[33]  Gary Koop,et al.  Measuring the health effects of air pollution: to what extent can we really say that people are dying from bad air? , 2004 .

[34]  John Mackenzie,et al.  A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models , 1993 .

[35]  K. Train,et al.  Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns , 1998 .

[36]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics , 1983 .

[37]  Jean-Claude Falmagne,et al.  A representation theorem for finite random scale systems , 1978 .

[38]  D. McFadden Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice , 1981 .

[39]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[40]  J. Araña,et al.  Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: Simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect , 2007 .

[41]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Choice and temporal welfare impacts: incorporating history into discrete choice models , 2004 .

[42]  David F. Layton,et al.  Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change , 2000, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[43]  Ian Witten,et al.  Data Mining , 2000 .

[44]  C. León,et al.  Single or double bounded contingent valuation? A Bayesian test , 2003 .

[45]  P. Boxall,et al.  Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach , 2002 .

[46]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[47]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? , 2002 .

[48]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Flexible Covariance Structures for Categorical Dependent Variables Through Finite Mixtures of Generalized Extreme Value Models , 2003 .